I have a Hotmail account I use as a backup for my real email. I send attachments all the time (usually around 70-80K, sometimes as much as 300K), and have not observed any losses. I'm not a M$ fan, but this article seems to be overstating the case, at best.
Sigh.... I know I'm feeding a troll, but I can't seem to help myself today. I haven't downloaded a single tune in my life (I'm 49). I like classical music for the most part, and have a decent CD collection of my favorites; I also like some contemporary music, and have a few CDs of that nature, as well. I just never really got into downloading tunes; I don't expect them to sound great on my computer, and I don't have any players or whatever.
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which comprise it are being vicious, vindictive and petty in their approach. I think they are going after people who can't afford to defend themselves and trying to bankrupt them, merely to scare others away from "piracy". They don't care whether their victims are actually guilty of any wrongdoing; they're counting on the fact that they can throw expensive lawyers and "expert" witnesses at them, and that the victims can't afford to fight, regardless of their actual liability in the matter.
I don't "steal" music, but I don't buy it anymore, either. I listen to what I already have, or I turn on the radio (I know, that does indirectly support them; but then, I can't remember ever buying anything as the result of a radio ad). I think the music industry as it exists now does not deserve the support of my dollars, and they're not going to get it.
We do hear about everything that happens more often today (especially the bad stuff, because that's the most newsworthy) than our ancestors did; we have better communication. But in politics, once corruption sets in, it's hard to reverse. When most people are honestly trying to serve the good of the people, things are reasonably good. However, when corrupt and corruptible people start getting into office, they find themselves with a competitive advantage. They are willing to do or say whatever it takes to get and keep office. The honest and principled ones begin to compromise or go down in defeat, and the general ethical level gets lower. It happened to Rome, and it's happening to us.
In some ways, you have a point. OTOH, the government is using such classification as a way to hide its misdeeds. The question is, which is more important? The need to keep legitimate secrets, or the need for our government to obey the Constitution and the rule of law? We're trusting these guys to work for the good of the people as a whole, and they're betraying that trust.
BTW, whoever modded the parent 'Troll' was wrong. It's a legitimate point of view that needs to be discussed, not suppressed.
Perhaps I (as a Massachusetts resident) can help. Everyone in the state is required to have health insurance (the deadline was July 1, but there is a grace period ending Dec. 31). People whose household income is less than 3 times the Federal poverty level (as defined on Apr. 1 of each year, IIRC) may sign up for Commonwealth Care, which is taxpayer subsidized. Commonwealth Care is offered on a tiered basis; those whose income is at or less than the FPL get it at no cost to themselves, those whose income is greater than the FPL pay an amount based on which tier they fall into (100.1%-150%, 150.1%-200%, 200.1%-250%, or 250.1%-300% of the FPL). Those whose income exceeds 3 times the FPL may get non-subsidized insurance through the state, if their employer doesn't offer it. Businesses with more than 10 employees are required to offer health insurance. There are penalties for both individuals and businesses who don't comply with the requirements. Full details, if you're interested, may be found at the Commonwealth Connector website.
I don't think it has anything to do with anyone wanting free music that badly; I think it has to do with putting a stop to the Gestapo-esque investigative tactics the RIAA is using. Even when they actually get the right person, they are trying to dish out punishment which is severely disproportionate to the offense in question. And when they don't, they cost innocent people thousands of dollars in legal expenses. At which point, they want to be able to just say, "Oops, sorry; we'll just drop the charges. No harm, no foul, right?" and walk away without admitting error or paying for the disaster they inflicted on their victim.
Click on Preferences, then Homepage. Scroll down to the section entitled, "Customize Stories on the Homepage". Find "Politics", and click on the leftmost radio button. Do the same to any other subject areas you don't care to see.
Personally, I find it interesting to see fellow techies' takes on politics. But if you don't, it's easy to screen out any stories you don't want to read.
I agree. There's a tagline I've seen that reads something like, "There is no '-1, disagree' option for a reason. Troll and overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes." I disagree strenuously with the OP, but modding the comment down is the wrong response.
I don't think the parent is having trouble distinguishing between Monopoly money and "something you can actually sell". I think he/she is questioning whether Congress can make such a distinction.
What they're looking at is the possibility of a precedent being set. The last thing they want is for someone to succeed in suing them, or getting what he wants out of them by trying it. They created the EULA so they could "opt out" of the courts. If they were to allow him to sue, they would concede that their EULA can be bypassed; and they are willing to spend lots of money to avoid setting that precedent.
Never mind, of course, that the EULA is inherently unfair to the consumer.
When I want to allow flash or a script to run, it's easy enough to do. The point of NoScript is that nothing runs without my explicit consent, just because I happened to visit a website. If I allow something malicious to run, it's my own fault.
Seriously. Why don't they just hire people to maintain their own version of Linux? Start with the base they have, under GPL2 (which already works for them), then if they need modifications to it, roll their own. If they don't want to comply with the terms of GPL3, then they don't get to use the uncompensated efforts of the community.
Yes, Congress was complicit in entering Iraq, but then again, they were spoon-fed disinformation from the executive branch regarding the WMDs. I can understand why they went along, in the post-9/11 atmosphere, and given the poor information they had. However, there were a number of people (myself included) who were opposed from day 1, and were unhappy with Congress for not standing up and demanding better evidence.
WMDs were the excuse, chosen by the President and his cronies, to drum up enough support for the war to go in. After it became apparent that they didn't exist, the rationale switched to Saddam's alleged support of Al Qaeda (a lie), and then to the nebulous, "Well, Saddam was such an evil, bloodthirsty dictator that he had to go!" But it all comes down to the neo-conservatives' desire to "redeem" the first Gulf War and "win" (whether for oil, or for misguided notions of remaking the Middle East in our image). Some victory, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Hotmail account I use as a backup for my real email. I send attachments all the time (usually around 70-80K, sometimes as much as 300K), and have not observed any losses. I'm not a M$ fan, but this article seems to be overstating the case, at best.
-Mike
Read the 2nd sentence in TFA (the part after the semi-colon).
-Mike
Sigh.... I know I'm feeding a troll, but I can't seem to help myself today. I haven't downloaded a single tune in my life (I'm 49). I like classical music for the most part, and have a decent CD collection of my favorites; I also like some contemporary music, and have a few CDs of that nature, as well. I just never really got into downloading tunes; I don't expect them to sound great on my computer, and I don't have any players or whatever.
However, I do think that the RIAA and the companies which comprise it are being vicious, vindictive and petty in their approach. I think they are going after people who can't afford to defend themselves and trying to bankrupt them, merely to scare others away from "piracy". They don't care whether their victims are actually guilty of any wrongdoing; they're counting on the fact that they can throw expensive lawyers and "expert" witnesses at them, and that the victims can't afford to fight, regardless of their actual liability in the matter.
I don't "steal" music, but I don't buy it anymore, either. I listen to what I already have, or I turn on the radio (I know, that does indirectly support them; but then, I can't remember ever buying anything as the result of a radio ad). I think the music industry as it exists now does not deserve the support of my dollars, and they're not going to get it.
-Mike
We do hear about everything that happens more often today (especially the bad stuff, because that's the most newsworthy) than our ancestors did; we have better communication. But in politics, once corruption sets in, it's hard to reverse. When most people are honestly trying to serve the good of the people, things are reasonably good. However, when corrupt and corruptible people start getting into office, they find themselves with a competitive advantage. They are willing to do or say whatever it takes to get and keep office. The honest and principled ones begin to compromise or go down in defeat, and the general ethical level gets lower. It happened to Rome, and it's happening to us.
-Mike
Especially if they're overladies!
-Mike
In some ways, you have a point. OTOH, the government is using such classification as a way to hide its misdeeds. The question is, which is more important? The need to keep legitimate secrets, or the need for our government to obey the Constitution and the rule of law? We're trusting these guys to work for the good of the people as a whole, and they're betraying that trust.
BTW, whoever modded the parent 'Troll' was wrong. It's a legitimate point of view that needs to be discussed, not suppressed.
-Mike
Perhaps I (as a Massachusetts resident) can help. Everyone in the state is required to have health insurance (the deadline was July 1, but there is a grace period ending Dec. 31). People whose household income is less than 3 times the Federal poverty level (as defined on Apr. 1 of each year, IIRC) may sign up for Commonwealth Care, which is taxpayer subsidized. Commonwealth Care is offered on a tiered basis; those whose income is at or less than the FPL get it at no cost to themselves, those whose income is greater than the FPL pay an amount based on which tier they fall into (100.1%-150%, 150.1%-200%, 200.1%-250%, or 250.1%-300% of the FPL). Those whose income exceeds 3 times the FPL may get non-subsidized insurance through the state, if their employer doesn't offer it. Businesses with more than 10 employees are required to offer health insurance. There are penalties for both individuals and businesses who don't comply with the requirements. Full details, if you're interested, may be found at the Commonwealth Connector website.
-Mike
I don't think it has anything to do with anyone wanting free music that badly; I think it has to do with putting a stop to the Gestapo-esque investigative tactics the RIAA is using. Even when they actually get the right person, they are trying to dish out punishment which is severely disproportionate to the offense in question. And when they don't, they cost innocent people thousands of dollars in legal expenses. At which point, they want to be able to just say, "Oops, sorry; we'll just drop the charges. No harm, no foul, right?" and walk away without admitting error or paying for the disaster they inflicted on their victim.
-Mike
Suggestion:
Click on Preferences, then Homepage. Scroll down to the section entitled, "Customize Stories on the Homepage". Find "Politics", and click on the leftmost radio button. Do the same to any other subject areas you don't care to see.
Personally, I find it interesting to see fellow techies' takes on politics. But if you don't, it's easy to screen out any stories you don't want to read.
-Mike
Does this have anything to do with NYC officials' reaction to Spencer Tunick's work?
-Mike
Say, did something just go, "whoooooooosh"???
-Mike
I'm just curious.... What does the term, "cautiously optimistic" mean to you?
-Mike
I agree. There's a tagline I've seen that reads something like, "There is no '-1, disagree' option for a reason. Troll and overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes." I disagree strenuously with the OP, but modding the comment down is the wrong response.
-Mike
I don't think the parent is having trouble distinguishing between Monopoly money and "something you can actually sell". I think he/she is questioning whether Congress can make such a distinction.
-Mike
I believe that's why the GP AC said, "...that we pretend is...".
-Mike
That whooshing sound you hear...? That's the sound of irony doing a quick flyover above your head....
-Mike
I guess, being married, I'm not an average /. reader.... Oh, well; I never really wanted to be average, anyway!
-Mike
Obviously, they use a scale which has a concave weighing pan. Sheesh, do I have to explain everything?!?? ;)
-Mike
Re: mung....
There are times I wish I weren't so damned curious. This is one of them.
-Mike
What they're looking at is the possibility of a precedent being set. The last thing they want is for someone to succeed in suing them, or getting what he wants out of them by trying it. They created the EULA so they could "opt out" of the courts. If they were to allow him to sue, they would concede that their EULA can be bypassed; and they are willing to spend lots of money to avoid setting that precedent.
Never mind, of course, that the EULA is inherently unfair to the consumer.
-Mike
You should sue them for piracy!
-Mike
When I want to allow flash or a script to run, it's easy enough to do. The point of NoScript is that nothing runs without my explicit consent, just because I happened to visit a website. If I allow something malicious to run, it's my own fault.
-Mike
Seriously. Why don't they just hire people to maintain their own version of Linux? Start with the base they have, under GPL2 (which already works for them), then if they need modifications to it, roll their own. If they don't want to comply with the terms of GPL3, then they don't get to use the uncompensated efforts of the community.
-Mike
Yes, Congress was complicit in entering Iraq, but then again, they were spoon-fed disinformation from the executive branch regarding the WMDs. I can understand why they went along, in the post-9/11 atmosphere, and given the poor information they had. However, there were a number of people (myself included) who were opposed from day 1, and were unhappy with Congress for not standing up and demanding better evidence.
WMDs were the excuse, chosen by the President and his cronies, to drum up enough support for the war to go in. After it became apparent that they didn't exist, the rationale switched to Saddam's alleged support of Al Qaeda (a lie), and then to the nebulous, "Well, Saddam was such an evil, bloodthirsty dictator that he had to go!" But it all comes down to the neo-conservatives' desire to "redeem" the first Gulf War and "win" (whether for oil, or for misguided notions of remaking the Middle East in our image). Some victory, eh?
-Mike
This is why I have "Always show link domains" selected in my preferences. :)
-Mike